A colleague approached me today and said - "Why are we using Linux? Windows server is clearly better. We need to migrate our infrastructure"

I'm generally not someone who gets too caught up in opinion - but shut the fuck up. There is no way we're going to adopt Windows server because it has a GUI and you're too shit to learn how to use a console.

@irene absolutely! It’s easier to use apparently

You know you're a true dev when you feel more comfortable in a terminal and GUIs feel alien

@irene Nope! Because it’s easy to use! Also this person contributes very little to the codebase, and because performance reviews are absent from my workplace, somehow he’s still there. Joy!

@TheyCallMeMJ Maybe I’m just a Linux fanboy but I find it easier to use, more compatible with other software, more secure and reliable, and probably the best benefit - it doesn’t cost anything.

@irene You just ask for raise and if they don't give it then you switch jobs. They might ask your direct supervisor for opinion on your performance and that is pretty much it.

@irene I don't. I'm severely underpaid, and I don't really have a choice because there are a shortage of software development jobs where I live. :(

@whiskey0 Linux is not more secure, it is not more compatible, not more reliable, and "free" only if your time is worth nothing (which is why Redhat survives btw). The OS cost itself is irrelevant in a commercial setting.

What Linux brings to the table on the server is exactly that it doesn't have a GUI, doesn't need one, and most servers don't have graphics card or monitor anyway. And it allows for easier scripting and automation.

Also, while it doesn't offer more software, it doesn't offer LESS software on server either (unlike desktop), so that there is no reason to go for a monopolist supplier when you can as well have an OS by several suppliers.

@Fast-Nop From my experience, and in comparison to Windows - Linux is significantly more compatible with software.

Linux is also significantly less likely to be vulnerable to a form of exploit - and I'd say this is most probably due to the market share.

Also I've found Linux is more performance orientated.

Again, my perspective is like this purely because I've had way more issues with Windows server in comparison to Linux.

@irene yeah, that's the Linux dependency hell at work. Update one thing, and a dozen others break. Install one small application, and BAMM 20000 other packets get also installed. Nobody has the time and budget to deal with the fallout of that shit.

But that's why containers have become a thing - while they don't solve the underlying problem, they provide some sort of damage control. Especially with the more lightweight ones that don't run a complete VM.

Also, the hacking isn't being done on raw OS level these days, but more via the applications. A WordPress installation with the usual amateurish PHP shit plugins allows takeover no matter what OS runs underneath.

@whiskey0 Linux isn't less vulnerable, and there are tons of hacked Linux installations whereever the market share makes that economically attractive. Just think about embedded Linux in all forms, especially routers.

Desktop Linux is no attractive target because no market share, and those who use it are usually IT-savvy and wouldn't fall prey to malware if they were using Windows either. It's security by minority and by layer 8 defence.

But still, Windows on server doesn't really make sense.

Btw., that co-worker's main argument with user friendliness doesn't even make sense. It's correct on desktop or when end users are in direct contact with a device.

But a server is a machine whose sole purpose is talking with other machines. Flexibility and configurability are more important than superficial ease of use.

Plus that a GUI should blend out unnecessary shit, that's part of usability. Doesn't work for a server where everything needs to be there. Put that in a GUI, and you end up with Windows admin style dialogues with 10 tabs, each of them with an "advanced" button, and that goes down a rabbit hole of "even more advanced" with 10 tabs each. Discoverability, also part of usability, quickly goes out of the window (haha).

For that kind of work, a text file with a 100 lines is much easier to handle, which is why Linux as server OS does it that way.

@Fast-Nop all I see is claims without any backing.

Linux is not less secure - I disagree. All OSes have their security issues but in the way linux handles permissioning, the mechanism itself seems more reliable. Linux architecture is more thought out, much clearer, more simplistic and based on single-responsibility principles [ever since the unix days tgis is the case], whereas Windows lives on patches patched over patches. Needless to say even w/o throughout investigation the latter arch is clearly less reliable.

Not more compatible -- linux is very well compatible with hardware, at least in my xp [personal and proffesional]. Multiple compatibility [bpo] layers for hw almost always allow you to use your devices. Maybe less functionality is available in bpo, but at least something works. Goid luck hooking up an old epson scanner on w10 [while it only has drivers for w95] :) linux made it usable immediately, as soon as I plugged it in.

More reliable - well in this one I completely disagree. In what way do you see linux less reliable? If some hw fails - kernel discards its module and keeps on running; if some sw crashed - you will have log entries explaining why; if one needs to do debugging -- the conprehensive gnu toolsuite for the rescue [with uid 0], without *any* additional magic rules [e.G. Not all open ports listed, not all files accessible while permissions are all ok, some processes hidden behind generic service names, no bsods/psods while trying to open a directory (if hdd is failing you will have reliable indications of that - other that a completely crashing os: D state processes, ro fs'es, segfaults in dmesg while mmap'ing and so on), etc.]

I'm not talking about security, reliability, etc of sw running on linux. If protocols allow sec vulns and linux apps implement them - these apps will have those problems, e.G. Mdns, smb, etc. But the os itself IS more reliable.

So WHY is it you say *nux is not more reliable, secure or compatible?

@Fast-Nop also consider that linux installation only brings linux with some handy tools. *all these tools* can be replaced with alternatives.
When you have windows installation you have most tools built-in and hardly [if at all] replaceable. Other features do not come as tools at all - they are builtins, which have no alternatives and can be switched off at best.

Now consider smb4 0day is discovered. What can you do about it. Only 2 choices: either disable it, block ports, say bye to the feature, or upgrade it as ms is kind enough to release an update. Which could take weeks or months. Can you install other smb versions/implementations that worked that bug around months ago? No you can't.

Smb is only one example. How about rdp? Linux subsystems? Desktop managers? Hw detection mechanisms? Etc? You are locked in.

@netikras Want to see desktop Linux issues in depth? Here: https://itvision.altervista.org/why...

I've had Linux as only(!) OS from 2001 to 2010, and I've run into a fair share of the issues from the link above throughout the years. Actually, I've already been using Linux before that. Before a lot of ranters on DR were even born.

.

@whiskey0 this rant turns out to be very educating to read

@whiskey0 "Linux is significantly more compatible with software" <-- what? Linux is compatible with software? WTH...?

Software is written FOR linux. it's the SOFTWARE that can be or not to be compatible with linux. Not vice versa.

If software is crashing on either OS - it's the SW that should be fixed. And in very marginal cases these crashes might be caused by a bug in OS or iron.

When I was a young asshole that knew even less than know, I was in this meeting with some old engineers and engineer managers and directors ( manufacturing)

The talk was around getting a service for around 300 simultaneous users, the engineer requested a USD10K windows server as a minimum, because of the licences and databases.

The manufacture company made SUN servers next-door.

No one mentioned Linux at all, I had suse in my personal laptop st the time, I was learning.

We did not get the server, or the service and the whole project kept using windows server.
The end.

@TheyCallMeMJ You know you're a true dev when you can adapt to anything that gets the job done depending on the scenario.

windows has a cli. it's shit! but it's there! powershell is a powerful beast if you can look past the horrible syntax without blowing your brains out. but damn, it is powerful I will admit.

still. Linux everyday.

I remember before the first job to have had a hard time using things without a GUI. That was before the routine with terminals had set in.

At my current job a colleague-dev recently entered my office. She looked at me typing stuff into the terminal and shortcutting my way through the IDE and then said, "oh wow, so you are one of those crazy keyboard people". And inside I went like, "awwwwww stop it youuuuuuuu~".

@deadPix3l cygwin

@kamen cygwin is great yea, but not for a server. you can't do access management, or service configuration, or registry editing, or group policy. it makes windows feel like Unix. which doesn't lend to doing very windows specific stuff. and then there's powershell. which does all those things and more in the most horrifying way possible.